Who cares to debate the events of 9/11/2001 based upon the laws of physics?

[Jay_Jay]

@running_coach

Upthread, you claimed that 15% can’t take down 85%. Now you’re saying it will.
Could you make up your mind/

please explain?
in what way did I say “it will”
how do you get that from what I said?

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

I used the word “exponentially” and if its by the square or cube, the power required to maintain air speed goes up a LOT and therein is the problem because there is no way that the jet engines could even significantly contribute to the power required to keep “FLT175” flying at 540 mph near sea level.

so then, ALL facets of the 9/11/2001 scene are at the very least questionable.
and for certain, the official reports on the subject constitute cover-up jobs
so now, are we not MAD AS HELL
.
.
.
yet?

You haven’t proven there’s something nefarious to be mad as hell about.

If you know enough to know there were no airplanes, then you know enough to explain how the illusion was pulled off.
Surely, someone in the 9/11 truther crowd has dropped a hint at least.

[Chronos]

I used the word “exponentially” and if its by the square or cube…

…Then you’re wrong, because neither square nor cube is exponential.

But it doesn’t matter. All you need to know is that jet engines are powerful enough to make a jet fly as fast as a jet. Which one would think would be common knowledge.

[k9bfriender]

@scr4

Sorry, I couldn’t read all of the thread, did you guys at least make Jay_Jay understand that “exponential” doesn’t mean what he thought it meant?

Pointed out a few times, but I don’t know that he understands.

And that power required to maintain airspeed goes up as cube of speed, not square? (Air resistance goes up as square of speed, but energy = force * distance, so power = force * speed.)

I’m not sure that last follows. We are not talking about acceleration, but maintaining speed. That means that overcoming air resistance is the only relevant figure. The force of air resistance is exactly the amount of energy that the engines need to put out to maintain speed.

[Jay_Jay]

@SamuelA

Fun fact : an airliner at 500 knots is about 1/3 the speed of a rifle bullet.

Bullets can punch through walls. What if, instead of a tiny lead slug, you hit a wall with something weighing around 100,000 pounds? With 1/3 the velocity, it would have 1/9 the energy - which would be an enormous number.

That’s gonna leave a mark, even in steel columns. In addition, that isn’t even what brought the towers down. What brought them down was the way they were supporting the roof of each floor. Each floor was just supported by thin, cheap trusses, the same kind you see on the ceiling of a warehouse.

The fire stressed and weakened it, and the trusses began to bend. The bending is what stresses the real weak point - tiny bolts holding each truss to the outer pillars of the building. Bolts snapped, and the concrete floor fell on the floor below. Note that the trusses never needed to melt. You know how if you heat up metal, it can bend? Same idea. The bending ripped the bolts out.

This happened several times over, and now you have a concrete floor with the weight of several floors on it. Those bolts are gonna snap. Now that floor, with 5+ floors of weight on it, begins to fall. It impacts the floor below, but is now going so fast, it doesn’t even get slowed down. And so on and so forth, pancaking to the basement. So now the core of the building is in the basement. The outer, load bearing shell would still be intact (the WTC was held up by a ring of steel beams around the outside), but for lateral stresses, so it all came down.

I read this in a book written by the construction company who actually built the twin towers.

So the actual collapse was caused by a weak point, by basically shoddy construction. These towers were not built as strong as they could be, nor were they as well put together as other similar structures in NYC.

As a side note, technically if you had wanted to rig the building to collapse with the least amount of effort, those bolts are what you would rig to blow. Put cutting charges on the bolts on each floor. Wouldn’t have taken more than a few hundred pounds of explosive.

first of all, how does your scenario account for the uniformity of the “collapse”
and also, you lapse into speculation about HOW it may have been done, however it is sufficient to know for certain that some other form of energy would have had to be present ( other than simply a gravity driven “collapse”)
bird in the hand an all that good stuff…

[Jay_Jay]

@Chronos

…Then you’re wrong, because neither square nor cube is exponential.

But it doesn’t matter. All you need to know is that jet engines are powerful enough to make a jet fly as fast as a jet. Which one would think would be common knowledge.

source please “not exponential”
how is that?

also, the jet engines are of a finite power and have limitations.
the same engines that power an airliner at 30,000 ft & 550 mph
can NOT do the same at <1000 ft .

[crowmanyclouds]

@Jay_Jay

{…} Like with controlled demolition
there are LOTS of videos with controlled demolition jobs gone wrong and it results in incomplete demolition.
however, because WTC1, 2 & 7 were totally destroyed, one can then conclude that the conditions exactly matching those of a controlled demolition … just happened …
what, by chance?

So, you should have no trouble finding a controlled demolition that shows a building collapsing from the top down and not from the bottom up? (Which, bottom - up, is what happens in every controlled demolition I’ve ever seen.)

CMC fnord!

[scr4]

@Jay_Jay

I used the word “exponentially” and if its by the square or cube, the power required to maintain air speed goes up a LOT and therein is the problem because there is no way that the jet engines could even significantly contribute to the power required to keep “FLT175” flying at 540 mph near sea level.

I can’t figure what you’re saying about “exponentially.” y=x^3 and y=x^2 are not exponential curves, you do understand that right?

If you are arguing the engines cannot accelerate the plane to 540 mph, that may be true. But the aircraft was also descending, so it was getting power from gravitational potential.

Since this is a discussion based on the laws of physics, here’s an easy high-school level physics question for you: a 100-ton plane is descending at 10,000 feet per minute. How much power is it getting from the gravitational potential energy? Give the answer in horsepower. You may use Google or even Wolfram Alpha if you are too lazy to do the unit conversions yourself.

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

first of all, how does your scenario account for the uniformity of the “collapse”
and also, you lapse into speculation about HOW it may have been done, however it is sufficient to know for certain that some other form of energy would have had to be present ( other than simply a gravity driven “collapse”)
bird in the hand an all that good stuff…

Because it’s the top. Even if it leans a bit, it won’t pull the entire building out of line. Pretty much the whole thing was exposed to fire, it’s not like there was a small area ablaze.
You’re used to seeing demolitions from the bottom that are intended to make the building lean.
There are times when a tall building is brought down into it’s own footprint because of surrounding structures.
And since you need reminding WTC7 was hit by debris from the falling Towers.

[Jay_Jay]

@scr4

Sorry, I couldn’t read all of the thread, did you guys at least make Jay_Jay understand that “exponential” doesn’t mean what he thought it meant? And that power required to maintain airspeed goes up as cube of speed, not square? (Air resistance goes up as square of speed, but energy = force * distance, so power = force * speed.)

exponential

so exponentially doesn’t mean what I thought it means?
so exactly what is YOUR definition?

[Jay_Jay]

@scr4

I can’t figure what you’re saying about “exponentially.” y=x^3 and y=x^2 are not exponential curves, you do understand that right?

If you are arguing the engines cannot accelerate the plane to 540 mph, that may be true. But the aircraft was also descending, so it was getting power from gravitational potential.

Since this is a discussion based on the laws of physics, here’s an easy high-school level physics question for you: a 100-ton plane is descending at 10,000 feet per minute. How much power is it getting from the gravitational potential energy? Give the answer in horsepower. You may use Google or even Wolfram Alpha if you are too lazy to do the unit conversions yourself.

“I can’t figure what you’re saying about “exponentially.” y=x^3 and y=x^2 are not exponential curves, you do understand that right?”

Given that I just posted a link to a dictionary definition of exponential,
what gives you the idea that I am incorrectly using the term?

[k9bfriender]

@Jay_Jay

Exponential - definition of exponential by The Free Dictionary

so exponentially doesn’t mean what I thought it means?
so exactly what is YOUR definition?

No, it does not mean what you thought it means.

“exponentially” means a function that evolves as c[sup]x[/sup].

quadratic is a function that evolves as x[sup]c[/sup]. Air resistance is a quadratic function, k times v[sup]2[/sup]

That’s not my definition, that’s math’s definition.

[scr4]

@Jay_Jay

Exponential - definition of exponential by The Free Dictionary

so exponentially doesn’t mean what I thought it means?
so exactly what is YOUR definition?

Exponential function

[Jay_Jay]

@k9bfriender

No, it does not mean what you thought it means.

“exponentially” means a function that evolves as c[sup]x[/sup].

quadratic is a function that evolves as x[sup]c[/sup]. Air resistance is a quadratic function, k times v[sup]2[/sup]

That’s not my definition, that’s math’s definition.

source please(?)

[scr4]

p.s. “increases exponentially” always refers to exponential growth. Which just means an increase following an exponential function (see above).

[elbows]

Here’s the real problem, you can show/tell him all day long, but you can’t understand it for him.

I’m of the opinion he’s unlikely to ever actually understand any of it.

But, then, theories like this never require even basic knowledge, do they?

True believers don’t require it, is all.

[k9bfriender]

@Jay_Jay

source please(?)

It was even right there in your own link.

@free dictionary

ex·po·nen·tial (ĕk′spə-nĕn′shəl)
Relating to a mathematical expression containing one or more exponents. Something is said to increase exponentially if its rate of change must be expressed using exponents. A graph of such a rate would appear not as a line, but as a curve that becomes steeper and steeper.

Now, colloquially, some people use it to mean a really fast rate of growth, but that is not correct. It is an exponential function only if the variable is an exponent. That is not the case in air resistance. If you were using it imprecisely, and just saying “really fast” then fine, it does increase really fast. But not exponentially fast, that’s really really fast.

[scr4]

@scr4

…here’s an easy high-school level physics question for you: a 100-ton plane is descending at 10,000 feet per minute. How much power is it getting from the gravitational potential energy? Give the answer in horsepower. You may use Google or even Wolfram Alpha if you are too lazy to do the unit conversions yourself.

Jay_Jay, have you tried this calculation yet?

[Skywatcher]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

…Documented witness statements? This is somehow superior evidence to the countless videos of the planes hitting the towers? I’m sorry, I’m having serious trouble wrapping my head around this. Are you telling me that if we didn’t have the video, and all we had was eyewitness testimony from people who claimed that they saw planes hitting the towers, you would believe that planes hit the towers? If I could dredge up eyewitness testimony from people who saw the planes hitting the towers, would you be convinced that planes hit the towers, or would you just handwave it away? I mean, from my experience, testimony is a hell of a lot easier to fake than video, but hey, if that’s the evidence that would convince you, by all means, I’ll go find some.

There are documented statements from those survivors who were in Stairwell B. Not one word about hearing explosives being detonated, only the sounds of Tower One collapsing above them.

[k9bfriender]

@elbows

Here’s the real problem, you can show/tell him all day long, but you can’t understand it for him.

I’m of the opinion he’s unlikely to ever actually understand any of it.

But, then, theories like this never require even basic knowledge, do they?

True believers don’t require it, is all.

True, but I’m sitting here, killing time, waiting for people to come pick up their dog.

Won’t be back till tuesday, most likely, so might as well get a bit of education in for maybe somebody.

ETA: And here they are, Adios.